2005(10)LCX0120

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI [COURT NO. IV]

S/Shri Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)

Thermax Surface Coating Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Customs (A.C.C.), Mumbai

Order No. A/349/2005-WZB/C-IV (C.S.T.B.), dated 18-10-2005 in Appeal No. C/1020/98-Mum.

Advocated By -

Shri H.C. Daruwala, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri C. Lama, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -

Heard both sides. The impugned goods have been held to be consumer goods and hence the same have been confiscated imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 4.4 Lakhs and penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. Initially the appellants had claimed classification under Heading 49.06 and the department has classified the same under Heading 49.11. The learned advocate states that the impugned goods are exempt even under Heading 49.11 in view of exemption Notification No. 23/98, dated 2-6-1998 (Sr. No. 97). He also states that the impugned goods were not consumer goods as the same were customized drawings which were printed with the help of computers and were necessary for construction of a surface coating plant and not for sale. He further claims that the impugned goods are freely importable at the material time under ITC (HS) classification under Heading 49119909.90.

2. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the impugned goods cannot be considered as consumer goods being in the nature of technical drawings customized for a particular use in the construction of a plant. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

(Pronounced in Court)

Equivalent 2006 (195) ELT 0228 (Tri. - Mumbai)